Rainbows and Pride

 

OK. So in a previous blog article I wrote, I noted that I am neither an ally or an enemy of the LGBTQ+ community. Instead, I have chosen a silent but compassionate and loving position, without abandoning tradition or positioning myself obnoxiously against the LGBTQ+ community. It has largely been a wait and see stance.  In the last few years, I have been wrestling with the evidence (scientific and historic), the philosophy, the logic, the theology, the politics, and the cultural dynamics of the LGBTQ+ community in all its initialism. I have been evaluating things very cautiously because it is and has been a very contentious issue and the heart of what has come to be known as the "culture war."

I was not raised with any hard disposition on the matter, but when I became a Pentecostal/Evangelical Christian in 1996, I was presented with what I thought was compelling evidence against sexual deviation [from heterosexuality] in Scripture. I simply assumed then that it was case closed. I didn't hate or seek out to malign people from the community and had several acquaintances with gay and lesbian people. These were cordial "agree to disagree" relationships. I believed, as Scripture posits, that Christians are in the world, though are not of it. Jesus rubbed shoulders with those who didn't abide by doctrinal standards, so I saw no reason to be a jerk or display arrogance above those who lived and believed different than me. But the culture war has entrenched people and the polemics have become more severe. And, the LGBTQ+ community has obtained expanded acceptance, which has threatened traditional-minded people, pushing them to more and more obnoxiousness. 

So, in my evaluations, I have had to approach things from different angles and while wearing different hats. Philosophically, I hold to two considerations. First, I have not necessarily accepted the veracity of LGBTQ+ claims at face value. I am careful to avoid logical fallacies in argumentation. One fallacy I often see employed by the LGBTQ+ side is the "is-ought" fallacy, which posits the sheer existence of LGBTQ+ folks as validation for moral and epistemological neutrality. It's the same argumentation that says, "Humans have canine teeth, so we are naturally carnivorous." Just because we have canines [what is] doesn't mean eating meat is best or right [what ought to be]." The complexity of dispositions here vary between people and communities. In the same light, just because someone is gay or trans doesn't mean that is the way it ought to be. This flows from a broader naturalistic fallacy that asserts that because it's natural it is morally, epistemologically,  and culturally neutral. I have heard it said that LGBTQ+ ought to be affirmed because sexual fluidity exists throughout the animal kingdom -- it is natural. My response here is one of caution, because some animals also eat their young or kill their mates. We should avoid false equivalences. We are more than biology.

On the other hand, I have a socio-political philosophy that sort of acknowledges my earlier disposition that I am not of the world, though I live in it. My aim is to sincerely love all people, including those I differ with. It is a "live and let live" approach. It is libertarian and draws from the Enlightenment philosophical constructs of freedom of conscience. I do not have to be a gatekeeper of moral conservatism or for Christianity. I can keep certain theological standards within the bounds of my faith and not weaponize them in a secular context. This is especially true in a nation that espouses liberty as a virtue, even if we have been imperfect at it for 248 years. 

Then, biologically, I agree with the science that says for most people, being gay or trans is not wholly a choice. I can still appeal to the naturalistic fallacy and say that it still doesn't make it right or God's design (assuming a faith position). Surely people born with cerebral palsy, cleft lips, missing limbs, etc. are not born according to archetypes or expected normality. We seek medical interventions for these conditions, but we don't discount value or worth or humanity with these people. Biology can also determine sex traits. While it is not a genetic issue per se, it is likely epigenetic, meaning that gestational hormonal imbalances and other environmental factors contribute to the way some genes respond. This doesn't give LGBTQ+ folks a pass as being "made that way," but neither should it be seen as a form of dehumanizing or tyrannical lordship by sexually normative folks. The contentious issue then is whether or not we treat LGBTQ+ dispositions as illnesses to be treated by hormonal correction to match bodies with teleological norms, or we accept LGBTQ+ people as wholly or ontologically normal. It's a debate that will not likely go away.      

Then I consider theology. Theologically, I hold that sexuality is largely teleological or a matter of form following function. Ontology, or intrinsic worth, transcends sexuality. This is a philosophical argument, but it meshes well with the creation narrative of Genesis 1:27. Now, there is plenty to be said of biblical claims against LGBTQ+, but many of the verses used against the community have been taken out of context and have been weaponized. Yet, I also don't see Scriptural affirmation. I think there is a better argument for the Bible speaking to heterosexuality, but the Bible is a liturgical device and not a science or philosophy text book, so I still need to wear kid gloves when tackling the issue. 

So, where do I stand? 

I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian and I accept a third way. Without making special pleading for LGBTQ+ beliefs, and without holding traditionalism against people who are still made in God's image and are worthy of love and kindness, I believe that love should be affirmed even if I think that sexuality is a different category. I think the bonds of love transcend sex, so I think it is possible that LGBTQ+ folks can have value and relationships in intimate and devoted ways (even life long domestic partnerships), but I see sex as primarily a procreative thing and something that is overplayed in our society, which I believe has confused physical sex for essentialism. Yet, I am not the consciences of my fellow human beings, so I will not lord anything over another person.

Unfortunately, even as I wrestle with this issue myself, I am saddened and offended by many claiming Christ who reduce LGBTQ+ to merely behavioral issues or matters of sin. In reality, sin is the sickness we all bear, so what good is it that I point out someones cold or flu cooties while I sit in the corner with hemorrhagic fever? While I do not believe that all cases of LGBTQ+ dispositions are choices that can be rallied against, I do think some people are indeed confused or manipulated by the cultural elevation of LGBTQ+, which I see as evidenced by some statistical data, especially in youth. Yet, it is not and never will be my place to cast judgement or aspersion. 

I recently had a dialogue with a lady on Facebook regarding the apparent appropriation of God's symbol of the rainbow by the LGBTQ+ movement. I do not think this helps and I think it is just another bullet to be fired in the culture war. It doesn't help. It makes things worse. And it's a petty misreading of the biblical text of the rainbow. 

After God rebooted creation with Noah and his family following the flood, he promised he wouldn't judge humanity and annihilate humanity or any of creation again and that the rainbow would be an enduring sign for his peace (Genesis 9:16). This person I debated essentially claimed that God owned the symbol and that the LGBTQ+ community stole it and misused it. But the symbol of the rainbow in Scripture has nothing to do with the LGBTQ+ context of a rainbow. The emphasis in the Bible was on the bow. It was symbolic of the weapon -- a bow and its arrows -- that God laid down as a peace treaty with creation, because he loves creation. He does not wish to destroy it, but rather save it. His judgement and wrath have been delayed into eternity. The LGBTQ+ rainbow is focused not on the bow, but the diversity of colors (like their non-bow shaped colored flag above), as seen in the diversity of the initialism of LGBTQ+ itself. It is about the refraction of white light (humanity) into constituent variety (colors/people). If Christians should learn anything from the Genesis account of the rainbow it is that God reserves judgement and so should we. It does not mean we need to have indifference in beliefs, but it means not being aggressively oppositional (a-holes) and learning to love people regardless. It means being willing to live in the world, though we are uncomfortable, because we are not in control. If we truly think the world needs saving now, pray that God's Spirit will permeate it with grace. The Christian role is to be a royal priesthood that prays for the world, not the gatekeepers of morality for the world. 

Blessings.